1) Use secular science to find the real answer2) Find passages in the bible, and twist them to support the secular science3) Claim the bible had it right all along

What never happens: A Creation Scientist makes an important discovery based on reading the bible

Furthermore, there are things the bible left out. Where is the talk about the New World? Or that germs cause disease? Or about the planets humans could not have seen? Or that Earth wasn't flat? All of those were found out from secular science.

1.Charles Darwin did it first he hijacked the evidence in science at that time and made evolution fit into it.2.The bible is a book that is revealed over time,there is no twisting going on.3.It did,it was our interpretation that was wrong until the right time.

Wrong! Modern science was started by Christians and evolution science has covered up what the evidence has always proved the gap theory not evolution.

abelcainsbrother wrote:3.It did,it was our interpretation that was wrong until the right time.

Don't you find it strange that your interpretation didn't help you one yota into making a conclusion, but it was the conclusion that you wanted that helped you figure out the interpretation?

Hey,I admit I was wrong.I had not discovered the truth yet,now I have the truth and it was true the whole time really.It was right under my nose in the bible and yet I overlooked it for so long.You can come back to the bible now and you can have both the bible and science hand in hand.You know It was Christians who discovered the earth was old and who discovered the first dinosaur and yet Darwin messed up what it was proving.

Master_Ghost_Knight wrote:Don't you find it strange that your interpretation didn't help you one yota into making a conclusion, but it was the conclusion that you wanted that helped you figure out the interpretation?

Hey,I admit I was wrong.I had not discovered the truth yet,now I have the truth and it was true the whole time really.It was right under my nose in the bible and yet I overlooked it for so long.You can come back to the bible now and you can have both the bible and science hand in hand.You know It was Christians who discovered the earth was old and who discovered the first dinosaur and yet Darwin messed up what it was proving.

I'm going to speak plainly.It's not a coincidence, nor is it just a curious observation.The reason why this happens is because the texts don't say what you think it says. You are the one that have provided the meaning all along. If you read the text without any A-priori preconception you will find that the text doesn't actually say much. The text are generally ambiguous or even downright convoluted, it is artistically generic with many instances of literary parables.You come to the texts with this idea that there is deep meaning to it, and that it contains some form of inner truth. So when you find a passage that doesn't actually say anything, it never crosses your mind that it means nothing. You simply assume that you just don't understand, that it does indeed have deep meaning but you just don't understand it yet. You may decided that some words doesn't actually mean what they mean, that what it is actually meant is something slightly different (almost synonymous). You may pick and chose what is an allegory and what isn't. You solve this puzzle like a charade, until you find a narrative that vaguely traces some of the wording in the text that you are happy with, and then decide that this is what the text meant all along.

This is of course until you gain more knowledge and realize that it was wrong, and in that situation you just discard your original idea and start thinking that it couldn't mean what you original taught. After all the text couldn't be wrong, it is just what you taught about it was wrong. And I will grant you, that in that situation you are absolutely right, The meaning you originally taught was right is not what's in the text (but then again that is because the text doesn't actually say anything). Now all of a sudden the text becomes vague again and stops making sense, but you just strike it of as merely that you don't understand God's ways (and not that the text doesn't have any meaning). Or maybe that conflict gives another idea, and you are able to construct another narrative (that matches in the same that the first one did) and then you think that this new meaning was the true meaning all along.

But the text never meant anything.

The reason why atheist don't see scripture the way you do is because they don't come with the A-priori conclusion that the text is right, or that it has deep meaning. We just read the text, if it doesn't make sense you just say that it doesn't make sense, if it looks wrong you just accept that it is wrong. We have no vested interested into cobbling a narrative to fix the problems and make the text say what it doesn't say as to protect the idea of biblical infallibility (or meaning, or correctness).

The text have no useful information, useful information has always come from you and you just decided that that's what the text mean.That is why you only have the "right interpretation" after you know the conclusion.

"I have an irrefutable argument for the existence of...." NO, STOP! You are already wrong!

Master_Ghost_Knight wrote:Don't you find it strange that your interpretation didn't help you one yota into making a conclusion, but it was the conclusion that you wanted that helped you figure out the interpretation?

Hey,I admit I was wrong.I had not discovered the truth yet,now I have the truth and it was true the whole time really.It was right under my nose in the bible and yet I overlooked it for so long.You can come back to the bible now and you can have both the bible and science hand in hand.You know It was Christians who discovered the earth was old and who discovered the first dinosaur and yet Darwin messed up what it was proving.

I'm going to speak plainly.It's not a coincidence, nor is it just a curious observation.

The reason why this happens is because the texts don't say what you think it says. You are the one that have provided the meaning all along. If you read the text without any A-priori preconception you will find that the text doesn't actually say much. The text are generally ambiguous or even downright convoluted, it is artistically generic with many instances of literary parables.

You come to the texts with this idea that there is deep meaning to it, and that it contains some form of inner truth. So when you find a passage that doesn't actually say anything, it never crosses your mind that it means nothing. You simply assume that you just don't understand, that it does indeed have deep meaning but you just don't understand it yet. You may decided that some words doesn't actually mean what they mean, that what it is actually meant is something slightly different (almost synonymous). You may pick and chose what is an allegory and what isn't. You solve this puzzle like a charade, until you find a narrative that vaguely traces some of the wording in the text that you are happy with, and then decide that this is what the text meant all along.

This is of course until you gain more knowledge and realize that it was wrong, and in that situation you just discard your original idea and start thinking that it couldn't mean what you original taught. After all the text couldn't be wrong, it is just what you taught about it was wrong. And I will grant you, that in that situation you are absolutely right, The meaning you originally taught was right is not what's in the text (but then again that is because the text doesn't actually say anything). Now all of a sudden the text becomes vague again and stops making sense, but you just strike it of as merely that you don't understand God's ways (and not that the text doesn't have any meaning). Or maybe that conflict gives another idea, and you are able to construct another narrative (that matches in the same that the first one did) and then you think that this new meaning was the true meaning all along.

But the text never meant anything.

The reason why atheist don't see scripture the way you do is because they don't come with the A-priori conclusion that the text is right, or that it has deep meaning. We just read the text, if it doesn't make sense you just say that it doesn't make sense, if it looks wrong you just accept that it is wrong. We have no vested interested into cobbling a narrative to fix the problems and make the text say what it doesn't say as to protect the idea of biblical infallibility (or meaning, or correctness).

The text have no useful information, useful information has always come from you and you just decided that that's what the text mean.That is why you only have the "right interpretation" after you know the conclusion.

Yes atheists do come with a conclusion first they start out with the belief the bible is not true or does not have much value for knowledge but yet believe life evolves first despite the lack of real evidence and then look at all of the evidence in the earth from the perspective life evolves.Christians do the same thing with their interpretation of scripture.Science starts out with a conclusion no God is needed and then builds science around this philosophy while denying it.

I have clearly laid out the reasons for my interpretation however even if you disagree with my interpretation my theory will still defeat evolution based on pretty much the same evidence evolution uses especially when I demand scientific evidence that demonstrates scientifically that life evolves,then point out they are interpreting the same evidence believing life evolves with no evidence that demonstrates life evolves.The gap theory will be more believable than the theory of evolution based on pretty much the same evidence.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Science starts out with a conclusion no God is needed and then builds science around this philosophy while denying it.

That is simply not true. No such conclusion is necessary to do science, in fact to start with a conclusion would be bad science.Also scientist isn't synonym with atheist, in fact trough out the span of science history most of them were mainly christian. And this includes christian scientist that besides their belief in God came none the less to the conclusion that life evolves.

There is a way to tell who is distorting the evidence to fit ones worldview.

Here is a simple test that you can do:Discover something that is yet unknown, based on the bible.

Here is a test that has been performed in the light of evolution:Discover something that was yet unknown based on the theory of evolution.Scientists have done the latter.Has anyone in history ever done the former?

"I have an irrefutable argument for the existence of...." NO, STOP! You are already wrong!

abelcainsbrother wrote:Science starts out with a conclusion no God is needed and then builds science around this philosophy while denying it.

That is simply not true. No such conclusion is necessary to do science, in fact to start with a conclusion would be bad science.Also scientist isn't synonym with atheist, in fact trough out the span of science history most of them were mainly christian. And this includes christian scientist that besides their belief in God came none the less to the conclusion that life evolves.

There is a way to tell who is distorting the evidence to fit ones worldview.

Here is a simple test that you can do:Discover something that is yet unknown, based on the bible.

Here is a test that has been performed in the light of evolution:Discover something that was yet unknown based on the theory of evolution.Scientists have done the latter.Has anyone in history ever done the former?

I can't believe you deny that scientists start out thinking no God is needed but I don't think I'll be able to change your mind so we'll just have to agree to disagree.Also it is not fair to compare the bible to science because the bible is revealed over time and what happens a lot of times is science will make a discovery that confirms something the bible had already said but we may not have realized it until the right time.

Nobody denies the things science has done and produced however not everything science believes and teaches has been demonstrated like evolution.It makes no difference who believes evolution the bible told us there would be a lot of deception in the last days.I think it is atheists who deny and reject how much there lives were blessed to live in Christian based societies and how much freedom and knowledge it gave them despite the good and bad things that happen in our world.

Christianity has been a blessing to our society and gave us so much more than people who lived in non-Christian societies.I think atheists need to thank God for his blessings.

abelcainsbrother wrote:I can't believe you deny that scientists start out thinking no God is needed but I don't think I'll be able to change your mind so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

No, let's not agree to disagree. Science does not start with the conclusion that God does not exist. That is a lie that you tell yourself to cope with the fact science does not come to your religious conclusions.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Also it is not fair to compare the bible to science

If you bring the bible as a justification for your "science", then it is fair game. It either is a good justification or it isn't, if it isn't you should discard it, it is a simple as that. And your bible get's no "get out of jail free card".

abelcainsbrother wrote:because the bible is revealed over time and what happens a lot of times is science will make a discovery that confirms something the bible had already said but we may not have realized it until the right time.

No. The text has nothing useful. You just come up with a conclusion and decide post hoc that some obscure test means that even tough in fact never meant such a thing.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Nobody denies the things science has done and produced however not everything science believes and teaches has been demonstrated like evolution.

You wish.

abelcainsbrother wrote:It makes no difference who believes evolution the bible told us there would be a lot of deception in the last days.

So you are saying that I must be the devil, for putting all this doubts in your head?But hey the bible tells that people would try to confuse you, and now you are confused, so it must all be true right? What happens if the bible is indeed a fraud? What would you then?

Even in the early days of Christianity people with 2 brain cells were able to put 2 and 2 together and figure out how much of an hullabaloo it was. The bible itself references "doubters who found themselves wise but became fools" calling it superstitious nonsense. And the last day it mentions was about 1800 years ago, the bible even states that one of the twelve disciples of Jesus would still be alive when the end of days come.It is no surprise that someone with an hot hear would state such a thing. It knows that it is criticism worthy.It's like a charlatan selling you a swindle and stating not to believe anyone else when they say it is a swindle because "they are jealous and liars". And you believe them.But what do I know? I'm the devil, and I am clearly trying to deceive you out of your godly ways just like the bible says. And the bible can not be wrong, can it?

abelcainsbrother wrote:I think it is atheists who deny and reject how much there lives were blessed to live in Christian based societies and how much freedom and knowledge it gave them despite the good and bad things that happen in our world.

Christianity has been a blessing to our society and gave us so much more than people who lived in non-Christian societies.I think atheists need to thank God for his blessings.

I actually thank the enlightenment for fighting tooth and nail against the iron fist of religious dogma, from men who purport to talk and do the works of God, from men that would burn you at the stake for as so much speaking a truth that was inconvenient to their made God they put at the altar atop an ivory tower.People were tortured and killed by the most cruel of ways imaginable for so much as speaking that which you today hold as an incontestable truth.Were it not for the abandonment of christian dogma, to hold nothing as sacred or beyond criticism, most of your daily comforts would have not exist. Remember that when you speak of the benefits of a christian society.

"I have an irrefutable argument for the existence of...." NO, STOP! You are already wrong!

abelcainsbrother wrote:I can't believe you deny that scientists start out thinking no God is needed but I don't think I'll be able to change your mind so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

No, let's not agree to disagree. Science does not start with the conclusion that God does not exist. That is a lie that you tell yourself to cope with the fact science does not come to your religious conclusions.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Also it is not fair to compare the bible to science

If you bring the bible as a justification for your "science", then it is fair game. It either is a good justification or it isn't, if it isn't you should discard it, it is a simple as that. And your bible get's no "get out of jail free card".

abelcainsbrother wrote:because the bible is revealed over time and what happens a lot of times is science will make a discovery that confirms something the bible had already said but we may not have realized it until the right time.

No. The text has nothing useful. You just come up with a conclusion and decide post hoc that some obscure test means that even tough in fact never meant such a thing.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Nobody denies the things science has done and produced however not everything science believes and teaches has been demonstrated like evolution.

You wish.

abelcainsbrother wrote:It makes no difference who believes evolution the bible told us there would be a lot of deception in the last days.

So you are saying that I must be the devil, for putting all this doubts in your head?But hey the bible tells that people would try to confuse you, and now you are confused, so it must all be true right? What happens if the bible is indeed a fraud? What would you then?

Even in the early days of Christianity people with 2 brain cells were able to put 2 and 2 together and figure out how much of an hullabaloo it was. The bible itself references "doubters who found themselves wise but became fools" calling it superstitious nonsense. And the last day it mentions was about 1800 years ago, the bible even states that one of the twelve disciples of Jesus would still be alive when the end of days come.It is no surprise that someone with an hot hear would state such a thing. It knows that it is criticism worthy.It's like a charlatan selling you a swindle and stating not to believe anyone else when they say it is a swindle because "they are jealous and liars". And you believe them.But what do I know? I'm the devil, and I am clearly trying to deceive you out of your godly ways just like the bible says. And the bible can not be wrong, can it?

abelcainsbrother wrote:I think it is atheists who deny and reject how much there lives were blessed to live in Christian based societies and how much freedom and knowledge it gave them despite the good and bad things that happen in our world.

Christianity has been a blessing to our society and gave us so much more than people who lived in non-Christian societies.I think atheists need to thank God for his blessings.

I actually thank the enlightenment for fighting tooth and nail against the iron fist of religious dogma, from men who purport to talk and do the works of God, from men that would burn you at the stake for as so much speaking a truth that was inconvenient to their made God they put at the altar atop an ivory tower.People were tortured and killed by the most cruel of ways imaginable for so much as speaking that which you today hold as an incontestable truth.Were it not for the abandonment of christian dogma, to hold nothing as sacred or beyond criticism, most of your daily comforts would have not exist. Remember that when you speak of the benefits of a christian society.

We'll just have to agree to disagree and I don't agree with your interpretation of the bible and I'm not going to try to change your mind because it is futile but I will say those interpretations were debunked long ago and I think you either missed it or never heard them debunked.It is true that Christians were burned at the stake but their deaths brought forth the age of enlightenment and modern day science that blessed us and gave us knowledge.It was not discovered the earth is very old because of evolution and the first dinosaur was discovered by a Christian geologist and paleontologist before Charles Darwin came on the scene.I'm glad that I don't think like you do about removing religion from the world when you had it so much better than people living in communistic societies.China has to steal technology from the west.And more people were slaughtered at the hands of atheistic dictators than all Christian wars combined but you atheists like to white wash much of the 20 the century while heading in the same direction doomed to repeat history instead of learn from it.

This world would be a much much more dangerous world had it no been for Christianity in the west.I don't see how you can appeal to people to become an atheist when looking at much of the 20th century.I would rather die than live in an atheistic society.

Master_Ghost_Knight wrote:Since when is atheism equal to a communist dictatorship?And I would rather live in France or Sweden than the United States.

Tell me who would protect you if another WW broke out living in them countries?The west is weakening while the east is gaining strength both China and Russia plus Islamic terrorism and Iran building nuclear bombs with Russia's help so who is going to protect you living in them countries?History shows us that the weak are conquered and even destroyed like the Ukraine right now.So who is going to stop it?Not America in the condition it is in so what is the west going to do?sing Kumbayah?The west takes so much for granted and Superman has been weakened by Kryptonite.

By the way Australia would probably be a better choice but you'd still face the same dangers of our world.What if Russia decided it wanted Australia?Or France or Sweden? Who would stop them?